I see what you're saying, and you make a good point that, in all honesty, I'll have to put some thought into.
My intuition is that art is different from other types of labor. For example, when I work at McDonalds, I don't get paid royalties for the rest of my life. Why not? How is that labor intrinsically different from making art? Either it is the same, or it is not, I think one has to agree. If it is the same, why should artists get special treatment? And if it is not, then by definition the social contract between us is different from other labor.
For example, if I download the Friday song by Rebbecca Black, I don't feel like I owe here a damn thing, because it's a horrible, horrible song.
I know this is no kind of complete retort to what you are saying. You bring up a moral argument, which is legitimate, and by definition not based on logic, per se. My intuition says one thing, yours another about that.
I do think it's quite mad to say infringement is akin to shoplifting, pretty much because the internet does not enable "stuff" to be freely reproduceable and available to everyone in the world. If it did, I would say that it would be immoral to deny the world the fruits of the Star Trek replicator internet. But it does allow the greatest library of human expression ever made, and now allowing it to be used as such, I think, is immoral.
The music industry still exists and prospers despite rampant sharing for over a decade now.
I would definitely respectfully disagree that it is like "all non-commercial shop lifting", for the obvious reason that copying something is not the same as stealing an object. It just ain't the same thing at all.
I think it would be great if you debated me about this in detail on my blog. I really want to foment serious discussion, in detail, and I don't want only folks who agree with me.
The patent trial still has to happen, and in the end it seems to be a fairly benign copyright infringement ruling against Google (by Google's terms, it would bankrupt me!)
The Pirate Parties are the only parties that support unlimited non-commercial file sharing, which is the only sane position on the matter.
Personally, I think it's the most important IP issue we have, since, if we're shutting down websites for copyright infringement, we are shutting down websites. And thence, we cannot discuss anything freely.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that you have to pay for it before you really know what you're buying. So personally, I feel shafted rather a lot.
But people made lots of art before there was copyright, and currently you'll see a lot of bands promoting themselves on the pirate bay (check their front page) quite voluntarily.
I think you do not realize that there is a box you are thinking inside of;-)
If it can be proven that there is any pattern to the layoffs corresponding to the Sheriff's political opposition, he should be sued for the obvious civil rights violation.
For a lot of money, and thrown in jail, too, if possible.
I'm ridiculously happy with my Le Pan tablet, however, which for $200 is a steal. Great viewable angle, phenomenal battery life, a good investment for my needs (casual web surfing on my coffee table).
For example, I've personally discovered hundreds of servers with compromised PHP scripts that worked merrily along via HTTPS, looking very secure. Unfortunately, attackers can attack a poorly written script over HTTPS exactly as easily as via HTTP, compromise it, and steal information (or whatever) just fine.
Personally, I just think about how many stars there are--especially in light of how many planets we are finding--and I can't help thinking life is common.
That being said, there still might not be any "near" us.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying, and you make a good point that, in all honesty, I'll have to put some thought into.
My intuition is that art is different from other types of labor. For example, when I work at McDonalds, I don't get paid royalties for the rest of my life. Why not? How is that labor intrinsically different from making art? Either it is the same, or it is not, I think one has to agree. If it is the same, why should artists get special treatment? And if it is not, then by definition the social contract between us is different from other labor.
For example, if I download the Friday song by Rebbecca Black, I don't feel like I owe here a damn thing, because it's a horrible, horrible song.
I know this is no kind of complete retort to what you are saying. You bring up a moral argument, which is legitimate, and by definition not based on logic, per se. My intuition says one thing, yours another about that.
I do think it's quite mad to say infringement is akin to shoplifting, pretty much because the internet does not enable "stuff" to be freely reproduceable and available to everyone in the world. If it did, I would say that it would be immoral to deny the world the fruits of the Star Trek replicator internet. But it does allow the greatest library of human expression ever made, and now allowing it to be used as such, I think, is immoral.
Are you sure about that?
The music industry still exists and prospers despite rampant sharing for over a decade now.
I would definitely respectfully disagree that it is like "all non-commercial shop lifting", for the obvious reason that copying something is not the same as stealing an object. It just ain't the same thing at all.
I think it would be great if you debated me about this in detail on my blog. I really want to foment serious discussion, in detail, and I don't want only folks who agree with me.
The patent trial still has to happen, and in the end it seems to be a fairly benign copyright infringement ruling against Google (by Google's terms, it would bankrupt me!)
Note that I only advocate (and the Pirate Parties only advocate) unlimited *non commercial* copying.
My post doesn't advocate getting rid of copyright, as the first line of your response implies.
If we keep on screwing with the climate, there might not be an economy.
(also, our debt isn't nearly as bad as Europe's, so cheer up)
The Pirate Parties are the only parties that support unlimited non-commercial file sharing, which is the only sane position on the matter.
Personally, I think it's the most important IP issue we have, since, if we're shutting down websites for copyright infringement, we are shutting down websites. And thence, we cannot discuss anything freely.
"informed and educated" is the key point, here. The dissenters in this case are almost universally not climatologists, or even scientists.
The argument is hard to make to laymen, however, how things like this and DRM only criminalize understanding things. Which is bad.
We should be as eager not to give them any more money, too, whenever we can.
They just...can't...give...up...trying to turn the internet into television.
It will now be easier to justify/implement blocking other unapproved sites.
The main problem with doing this for piracy is that so many people do it. They are fighting a large proportion of all people.
Censorship should be limited to only the most egregious things, if that, or it WILL be expanded.
Isn't it de rigeur that anything Microsoft invests in heavily, especially outside it's core competence, fails?
Don't be fooled by "don't be evil".
gotta get over my google addiction, one of these days.
You make a fair (and conventional) point.
;-)
It seems to me that part of the problem is that you have to pay for it before you really know what you're buying. So personally, I feel shafted rather a lot.
But people made lots of art before there was copyright, and currently you'll see a lot of bands promoting themselves on the pirate bay (check their front page) quite voluntarily.
I think you do not realize that there is a box you are thinking inside of
...on what should in most cases probably be free.
"Gifting" a file is about as silly as "purchasing" one, in my book.
If it can be proven that there is any pattern to the layoffs corresponding to the Sheriff's political opposition, he should be sued for the obvious civil rights violation.
For a lot of money, and thrown in jail, too, if possible.
I'm ridiculously happy with my Le Pan tablet, however, which for $200 is a steal. Great viewable angle, phenomenal battery life, a good investment for my needs (casual web surfing on my coffee table).
..giving a false sense of security.
For example, I've personally discovered hundreds of servers with compromised PHP scripts that worked merrily along via HTTPS, looking very secure. Unfortunately, attackers can attack a poorly written script over HTTPS exactly as easily as via HTTP, compromise it, and steal information (or whatever) just fine.
..after all, with all these new TLD's it will solve the problem of...uh...I mean, it will help greatly with...uh...um.
shit.
Fair point.
Well said.
All of them. Throw them all out.
Personally, I just think about how many stars there are--especially in light of how many planets we are finding--and I can't help thinking life is common.
That being said, there still might not be any "near" us.
except for the "patented" part.
Maybe the trojans are part of the performance art?